Alternative to Taking 10

[Urbannen]

In fact, many of the DCs for tasks are clearly printed in the PHB, meaning that players know what they are.

It is possible that the DCs were devised with Taking 10 in mind. I admit that. Many times DC 10 is shown to be the baseline. I don't really think the designers actually did take into full consideration, however.

Another beef I have against Taking 10 is that it takes away the drama from out-of-combat checks for most mid-level and higher parties. I personally enjoy out-of-combat skill challenges, but with Taking 10, they are often irrelevant to my high-level party.

There are many skill checks whose failure, even out-of-combat, can have negative consequences. Most mid-level (or even low-level) parties can avoid these negative consequences with an automatic result by Taking 10. This removes much of the interest from these skill uses. Examples:

- Heal check to stabilize a wounded ally. The DC is 15 and it is clearly listed in the PHB. In this case, the difference between +4 and +5 may literally be life or death.

- Climb checks. Taking 10 can completely removes the threat of falling or not going at full speed.

- Survival checks to track. DC 22? No problem, our ranger has +13. We'll take 10. Oops, our Ranger has +11, it takes us hours. Ick. And this skill is rarely used in combat.

 

[Kerrick]

The character with +4 can't take 20 on his out-of-combat skill check, and so has to roll randomly to achieve the 15. His chance of success is 50% (succeeds on 11-20). This contrasts with the character with +5 who can automatically succeed by Taking 10.

Ohh... you're saying that in a situation where neither character can take 20, the one with +5 will always win by taking 10. I gotcha now.

Or say a character is trying to get a lock open while his comrades are holding off enemies: is he better off going slowly to earn -5 to the DC for a check every two rounds or attempting one normal check per round? It would be a tactical decision.

Don't forget, he'd still have to make a Concentration check while he's doing it.

You can either choose to roll and accept the final result, for better or worse, or take 10, which essentially removes all chance from the equation. Especially for dcs you know you are likely to succeed on a roll of around 10 or more. Why wouldn't you take 10? This effectively lets you do away with all the downside risks.

And that's my problem with it - no chance of failure or the consequences thereof. IMO, there should always be a chance, however small, to fail. Now, if it's something like searching a room for the wizard's magical doodad and there's nothing going on, then sure - take 20 and have done with it. But take 10... eh. I know an average d20 roll is 10, but it just eliminates the random element. *shrug* I've also instituted skill bonuses for exceptionally high rolls (every 5/10 points over the DC), so players are less likely to take 10 and actually make a roll (that wasn't my intent, just a side effect).

In the very least, I just have all npcs take 10 on their relevant skill checks to avoid the hassle of having to roll multiple times, and to avoid the extreme unpredictability of opposed d20 rolls.

For NPCs, sure - they're generally not that important and won't last long enough to matter, and I'm sure it makes things a lot easier for you.

 

[Urbannen]

Ohh... you're saying that in a situation where neither character can take 20, the one with +5 will always win by taking 10. I gotcha now.

I actually meant to say Take 10, not 20. Oops. The +4 could still succeed, but the +5 will always succeed by taking 10.

Don't forget, he'd still have to make a Concentration check while he's doing it..

No, Concentration is only for spellcasting.

 

[Draz]

No, Concentration is only for spellcasting.

Nope. Check the description of the Concentration skill again. It's supposed to be used when a more-than-one-round action, such as a Disable Device check, is interrupted by the character taking damage.

For instance, a character with a +4 bonus performing a DC 15 skill check has a 50% chance to succeed; a character with a +5 bonus performing the same check has a 100% chance to succeed.

This is the only one of your objections that makes me question the Take 10 system. You've got an interesting point here. But ... I don't know. I'm still not convinced that this is actually nonsensical.

In any case, I've generally liked the Take 10 system's realism, especially in terms of how it can explain why unskilled people don't fail more often at mundane tasks. (Example: Tying your shoes is probably a DC 5 task; it's certainly not a DC 0 task, since it's hard for young kids to learn. Yet millions of people, who don't have exceptional Dexterity or any ranks in Use Rope, manage to do it every day without messing up 20% of the time. How? By taking 10.)

 

[Runestar]

Another beef I have against Taking 10 is that it takes away the drama from out-of-combat checks for most mid-level and higher parties. I personally enjoy out-of-combat skill challenges, but with Taking 10, they are often irrelevant to my high-level party.

Then I guess that the crux of this discussion is really about whether your players enjoy this added "drama". For my party, they tend to prefer some form of stability (or predictability, as you might classify it) in their stats. Which has resulted in feats which let you take 10 (such as steady concentration, arcane mastery etc) being fairly popular. Though I concede that the warblade being able to take 10 on his concentration checks was fairly annoying, because he can never fail a save....

I guess it boils down to a matter of personal preference.

 

[Cenrtalic]

I agree. I've always thought taking 10 (though not necessarily taking 20) was kind of a silly concept.

Runestar, if your Warblade always makes saves due to taking 10 on Concentration checks, you're obviously aren't throwing enough save-based abilities at him

 

[Kerrick]

I actually meant to say Take 10, not 20. Oops. The +4 could still succeed, but the +5 will always succeed by taking 10.

I wondered why you were saying take 20, not take 10. But, the PC with +4 will never succeed, because his roll is a 10, plus the 4 bonus - 14. There's no 50% chance, because he's not rolling the die.

In any case, I've generally liked the Take 10 system's realism, especially in terms of how it can explain why unskilled people don't fail more often at mundane tasks. (Example: Tying your shoes is probably a DC 5 task; it's certainly not a DC 0 task, since it's hard for young kids to learn. Yet millions of people, who don't have exceptional Dexterity or any ranks in Use Rope, manage to do it every day without messing up 20% of the time. How? By taking 10.)

Or they do it by reducing the DC by 5 (to 0) and taking an extra action.

This gave me an idea... someone can still try a skill untrained, but the DC is 5 higher and they take twice as long to do it as someone who's trained. That way, even if you have no one in the party with Disable Device, someone could possibly disarm that trap - it would just be a little harder and take a lot longer. You still can't do Knowledge checks untrained, though.

 

[Urbannen]

from Draz Nope. Check the description of the Concentration skill again. It's supposed to be used when a more-than-one-round action, such as a Disable Device check, is interrupted by the character taking damage.

Gosh, that's right. You learn something new every day, whether you want to or not.

from Draz In any case, I've generally liked the Take 10 system's realism, especially in terms of how it can explain why unskilled people don't fail more often at mundane tasks. (Example: Tying your shoes is probably a DC 5 task; it's certainly not a DC 0 task, since it's hard for young kids to learn. Yet millions of people, who don't have exceptional Dexterity or any ranks in Use Rope, manage to do it every day without messing up 20% of the time. How? By taking 10.)

Very good example in favor of Taking 10. I'm not sure if d20 describes children well, though.

from Runestar Then I guess that the crux of this discussion is really about whether your players enjoy this added "drama". For my party, they tend to prefer some form of stability (or predictability, as you might classify it) in their stats. Which has resulted in feats which let you take 10 (such as steady concentration, arcane mastery etc) being fairly popular. Though I concede that the warblade being able to take 10 on his concentration checks was fairly annoying, because he can never fail a save....

Yes, I think it comes down to style of play. I would argue that there is stability in results without Taking 10. Your minimum result is 1+bonus. That means a 1st level character with +4 in a skill will always make a DC 5 check. If a DC 5 is defined as "easy", then this makes sense. By sixth level the same character will always succeed on average tasks (DC 10), etc. It depends on what you want a skill bonus to mean.

I also want there to be a reason for players to continue to develop "static" skills into higher levels, and for there to be a reward for doing so.

I've heard arguments that say that Taking 10 has to exist to explain how a 1st level commoner or expert can use Craft to make basic items. However, a 1st level commoner can easily get the +9 skill bonus necessary to Craft DC 10 items on demand. +4 ranks, +3 Skill Focus, mix good equipment/favorable circumstances or Int bonus for an additional +2. And if he only has a +7, that means he fails 15% of the time - well, some people aren't good at what they do.

from Kerrick I wondered why you were saying take 20, not take 10. But, the PC with +4 will never succeed, because his roll is a 10, plus the 4 bonus - 14. There's no 50% chance, because he's not rolling the die.

You're going on the assumption that players/characters don't know the DCs of their tasks. However the DCs for most "static" tasks are listed in the PHB. Since players have access to the PHB, they know these DCs. Players know it takes a DC 15 Heal check to stabilize. Once combat ends the one with a +5 takes 10. The one with a +4 doesn't Take 10 because he knows the DC is 15.

Off the top of my head, the principal times that a character would be unsure of Taking 10 would be when making opposed skill checks and dealing with locks and traps. Otherwise the DCs are in the PHB.

 

[Kerrick]

You're going on the assumption that players/characters don't know the DCs of their tasks. However the DCs for most "static" tasks are listed in the PHB.

True. I thought you were comparing both PCs on the basis of a simple roll (the point about the DC being known didn't really occur to me).